Ryan and Wyden Reform Medicare

Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden have proposed a reform of Medicare that is similar to many other proposals that have been made of late, but with considerably more detail. They explain their plan in a Wall Street Journal editorial  and in a white paper. Austin Frakt has a summary. Avik Roy has a discussion of some of the issues as well as commentary on what other bloggers (left and right) are saying.


  • Medicare would be redesigned: Parts A and B would be combined to produce a single plan with catastrophic coverage (no need for Medigap).
  • Seniors would be able to choose among competing private plans, just as they do today under Medicare Advantage, and the regulations would be more flexible.
  • There would be competitive bidding by the private plans.
  • The growth of Medicare (and presumably of the government’s premium support for private plans) would be restricted to real GDP growth plus 1 %.

I like this plan. It is similar to the NCPA approach. But like other eat-your-spinach reforms, this plan shifts a burden to young people without giving them new tools to be able to manage that burden. Workers need to be able to save in tax free accounts in order to replace the lower level of spending by government in future years. About 4% of payroll would do the trick.

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ken says:

    Good plan, but I agree with you John. They need to have a saving component.

  2. Brian says:

    It will take some time to convince young workers of the benefit of having tax free accounts, but it can happen.

  3. Joe S. says:

    Definitely a step in the right direction.

  4. Paul H. says:

    The growth path in this proposal is much more sensible than what was in the House Republican budget.

  5. Eric says:

    So why is having a public option bidding against private insurers unacceptable to to the right in the ACA but ok in Ryan-Wyden? What am I missing here?

  6. John Nelson says:

    Re Why Mandated Health Insurance is unfair. Not mentioned, is that the uninsured pays the retail price at the Hospital and the Doctor, not the price negotiated by the insurance company or mandated by Medicare. My primary doctor at the Mayo Clinic does not accept Medicare and he says he must charge the “rack rate” as the discounts negotiated with the insurance companies are based upon it. If he discounts the cash customer he jeopardizes his contracts with the carriers.

  7. Matt Basil says:

    When it ranked lawmakers according to their progressivism on 2010 votes, the advocacy group Americans for Democratic Action scored Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., at 100 percent. Meanwhile, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., got a zero.But now, these seemingly politically polar opposites have confounded many on the right and left by cooperating on a new proposal to reform Medicare, the government health insurance system covering 48 million elderly and disabled.I am really inclined to see the future incidents regarding this reform.
    7 chakras Meditation

  8. Gabriel says:

    Basically what the democrats are doing is pdretneing to let you keep your private insurance when actually their goal is to push the insurance companies out of business and get you on the single payer government plan as Obama himself even said is the goal here. Here is a video of Obama talking about it: /obama-inlsquo03-uncut-irsquod-like-to-see-alsquosingle-payer-health-care-planrsquo/They are trying to socialize our medical system and take it over. People try to say that it is not socialism, but socialism is the socialization of responsibilities and risk across the population. That is exactly what they are doing. They want to take over health care for no other reason except power. Cancer Survival by CountryColeman and colleagues drew on data from nearly 2 million cancer patients, ages 15 to 99, whose medical information was entered into 101 population-based cancer registries in 31 countries. The patients had been diagnosed with one of four cancers: breast, colon, rectum, or prostate cancers during the years 1990-1994. They were followed up to 1999, with the researchers comparing five-year survival rates.The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for ****** and prostate cancerThe study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for ****** cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%. The UK had 69.7% survival for ****** cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer. The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe’s is much lower at 57.1 per cent. However, survival rates within the U.S. can vary. Older people are refused organ transplants and kidney dialysis in socialized countries. Socialized medicine is killing people. People that are covered now and would get excellent care, will be killed. You may be deemed to old for health care and the government may choose to put you down. Basically socialized medicine kills about 40% of all people that get cancer over our medical system. That is just the ones they report. i wonder f they even report the ones that they simply refuse to even treat because of age or costs. basically like any other time that the government gets involved it punishes those that are responsible for those that are irresponsible. If you look around the world at their socialized system you would be loosing health care. It would take you longer to see specialists, if you were to be stricken by cancer the government would decide weather or not you would be eligable for treatments. Right now, anyone in this country can have top notch health care. It simply has to be their priority. I got a job at 18 that provided health insurance. I was a teller at a bank. It was far from my ideal job at that time, but I needed health insurance and I made it a priority. Basically the government is taking health care from those that have it as a priority andgiving it to those that do not. There will not be more doctors, in fact the government will cap their pay and highly regulate them meaning there will be less doctors. There will not be more hospitals. Basically the government will not create any health care, it will simply distribute it. Also, they will take the profit motive from all companies related to the health care industry and that is where the only cost savings will come from. This may sound good, but it really means no new innovation because they will nto be compensated for R D and the risk of putting all that money on the line for research if they do not make anything off of it. In countries where socialized insurance exists, there is no new innovation. We can not afford it. Basically the democrats claim that there are 47 Million people without health insurance. The Government plan costs way to much and it will still leave 20 Million uninsured. We will not only destroy health care for the middle class, but we are going to burry our children and grandchildren in debt all so able bodied and minded people simply do not have to take responsibility for themselves. Finally, The government health care plan will destroy private insurance plans. In this video it shows Obama talking about it as well as other democrats. They are fully aware that it will drown out private insurance.…Source(s):…